USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · ofr20111187

Quality assurance and quality control of geochemical data—A primer for the research scientist

Abstract

Geochemistry is a constantly expanding science. More and more, scientists are employing geochemical tools to help answer questions about the Earth and earth system processes. Scientists may assume that the responsibility of examining and assessing the quality of the geochemical data they generate is not theirs but rather that of the analytical laboratories to which their samples have been submitted. This assumption may be partially based on knowledge about internal and external quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) programs in which analytical laboratories typically participate. Or there may be a perceived lack of time or resources to adequately examine data quality. Regardless of the reason, the lack of QA/QC protocols can lead to the generation and publication of erroneous data. Because the interpretations drawn from the data are primary products to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stakeholders, the consequences of publishing erroneous results can be significant. The principal investigator of a scientific study ultimately is responsible for the quality and interpretation of the project's findings, and thus must also play a role in the understanding, implementation, and presentation of QA/QC information about the data. Although occasionally ignored, QA/QC protocols apply not only to procedures in the laboratory but also in the initial planning of a research study and throughout the life of the project. Many of the tenets of developing a sound QA/QC program or protocols also parallel the core concepts of developing a good study: What is the main objective of the study? Will the methods selected provide data of enough resolution to answer the hypothesis? How should samples be collected? Are there known or unknown artifacts or contamination sources in the sampling and analysis methods? Assessing data quality requires communication between the scientists responsible for designing the study and those collecting samples, analyzing samples, treating data, and interpreting results. This primer has been developed to provide basic information and guidance about developing QA/QC protocols for geochemical studies. It is not intended to be a comprehensive guide but rather an introduction to key concepts tied to a list of relevant references for further reading. The guidelines are presented in stepwise order beginning with presampling considerations and continuing through final data interpretation. The goal of this primer is to outline basic QA/QC practices that scientists can use before, during, and after chemical analysis to ensure the validity of the data they collect with the goal of providing defendable results and conclusions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nicholas J. Geboy, Mark A. Engle. 2011. Quality assurance and quality control of geochemical data—A primer for the research scientist. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20111187

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona